[147778] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Swafford)
Wed Dec 21 15:24:06 2011
In-Reply-To: <B983945B-5578-4ED0-9C3B-39E9F20C50BF@humancapitaldev.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:22:55 -0500
From: David Swafford <david@davidswafford.com>
To: Daniel Seagraves <dseagrav@humancapitaldev.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In my position within the enterprise vertical, backdating to the
expiration (not the payment date) seems to be the norm. Cisco does
this on SmartNet, as does SolarWinds and a number of other vendors
I've worked with. We don't typically slip on the dates intentionally,
but our procurement and legal groups have a habit of fighting over
wording on the contracts.
David.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Daniel Seagraves
<dseagrav@humancapitaldev.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Edward Dore wrote:
>
>> On 21 Dec 2011, at 18:46, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact, it's not. =A0If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safa=
ri
>>>> books,
>>>> they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don'=
t
>>>> *get*
>>>> the service between the expire date and the renew date, I concur with
>>>> his
>>>> appraisal that you shouldn't be paying for it, either.
>>>>
>>>> If in fact, the service *kept working* for a short time when an
>>>> overlooked payment was missed, it would be a different story.
>>>>
>>>> But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated
>>>> that way.
>>>> Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*.
>>>>
>>>> I also disagree with your proposition that this is off-topic for NANOG=
,
>>>> really.
>>>
>>> I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice=
, wherever I've seen it. =A0The justification for it is the utterly misguid=
ed belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then cancel t=
heir subscription and 'coast' on the 'current' version of the signature for=
a year. =A0This approach suffers from (at least) two fundamental flaws:
>>>
>>> 1) The entire customer base are treated as hostile. =A0It is no surpris=
e that they resent this. =A0(Assumption: having resentful customers is bad)
>>> 2) Spam is, perhaps moreso than ever, a rapidly evolving threat. =A0The=
effectiveness of signatures declines dramatically with time, which means t=
hat August's signatures have little value by December. =A0[By the way, it s=
eems to me that if they're willing to charge for valueless signatures, that=
represents either A) doubt as to the value of the current signatures, or B=
) disbelief in the decreasing value of out of date signatures.]
>>>
>>> While I realize that car insurance might not be the best analogy subjec=
t, imagine if you put your car on blocks, went off to college and allowed t=
he insurance to lapse whilst you were there. =A0When you return, the insura=
nce company wants you to pay the last three years of insurance in order to =
reactivate your policy. =A0That companies customers would react in the same=
way: they would find a new provider to do business with, rather than pay o=
ut for a valueless bit of smoke and mirrors.
>>>
>>> Nathan Eisenberg
>>
>> Are you turning your anti-spam appliance off whilst choosing not to pay =
for the maintenance? If not, then I'd argue that a better analogy would be =
that you don't pay for your car insurance but continue to drive your car ar=
ound until you have an accident, at which point you try to take out a new p=
olicy so that you are covered.
>>
>> Whilst I can see the argument for the likes of signature updates, where =
you aren't receiving the service in the period that you haven't paid for (u=
nless the signature update system is seriously broken), these kind of maint=
enance renewals for appliances normally also include software support and h=
ardware repair/replacement.
>>
>> If the companies don't backdate the maintenance renewal, then you would =
end up with lots of companies only purchasing the maintenance on an ad-hoc =
basis and that will just make the renewals more expensive for those of us t=
hat actually pay attention to when our subscriptions to due to expire and h=
ow much they will cost to renew in order accurately predict cash flow.
>
>
> <rant>
> Besides, treating your customers like thieves and/or forcing disagreeable=
conditions on them is all the rage now! Everyone knows they can screw cust=
omers as hard as they like because everyone else is going to screw them jus=
t as hard, and if you aren't screwing them hard enough, well that's just wa=
sted potential right there! Don't worry about them leaving for another prov=
ider - They all do it! I mean, look at the airlines: Company profits in the=
toilet, customer satisfaction so low they're trying to get Congress involv=
ed, crew pay at the lowest on record, and the salaries of the upper managem=
ent is the highest in the history of the industry! Just think, if you screw=
your customers hard enough, YOU could be NEXT sitting on that huge pile of=
cash in the top of your ivory tower pissing down on the public!
>
> For example, I have a large pile of content that I have paid for but cann=
ot access anymore because their various copy protection schemes are no long=
er supported or no longer run on modern machines. Next to that I have a sma=
ller but increasingly growing stack of content I paid for but REFUSE to acc=
ess due to provisions hidden in the EULA requiring me to display advertisem=
ents and/or install spyware on my computer. You can't read the EULA before =
purchase and you can't return the purchase for a refund if you refuse the E=
ULA. (That's right, you can sell AD-SUPPORTED software that customers pay F=
ULL RETAIL PRICE for! They whine and complain on the internet, but believe =
you me, when the next iteration comes out, they'll line up to buy it!) I co=
uld resort to illegal hacks that disable the DRM or remove the ads, but tha=
t is a federal offense and a security risk, and I don't feel like wasting m=
y computer or career over a few hundred dollars. So they join the pile. The=
companies who do this actually consider this situation desirable - They go=
t my money, and I'm not going to be downloading patches or using up server =
time or anything. Pure profit! It's win-win!
>
> Executive Summary: It doesn't matter what your customers want anymore. Yo=
u just give them what you want to give them, and if they don't take it, you=
punish them until they give up and go away (and don't worry about that, th=
ey'll be back!) or accept your conditions. Thar's gold in them thar hills, =
you just gotta go beat it out of em!
> </rant>
>
>
